American Politics

**EihTooms** · 08-20-24 02:28

It sure looks like "Dems good, Repubs bad" and "Harris good, Trump bad" to me.

I suppose he is just another Democratic Douche.

Exclusive: Conservative Republican endorses Harris, calls Trump a threat to democracy.
Aug. 19, 2024

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/polit...cy?cid=ios_app

Retired federal appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar put on the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump, whose candidacy he describes as an existential threat to American democracy.

It will be the first time Luttig, a veteran of two Republican administrations, has voted for a Democrat.

"In the presidential election of 2024 there is only one political party and one candidate for the presidency that can claim the mantle of defender and protector of Americas Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, Luttig wrote in a statement obtained exclusively by CNN. As a result, I will unhesitatingly vote for the Democratic Partys candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris.

Luttig played a now famous role in persuading then-Vice President Mike Pence to defy Trump and certify the 2020 presidential election. In a series of tweets drafted at the request of Pences attorney, Luttig spelled out in stark terms the legal rationale for Pence to reject the former presidents attempt to overturn Joe Bidens victory.

Since then, Luttig has emerged as a preeminent constitutional critic of Trump. In endorsing Harris, Luttig argues that partisan distinctions must, in this election, be set aside in order to prevent the singularly unfit Trump from returning to the White House.

"In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, Luttig writes, but I am indifferent in this election as to her policy views on any issues other than Americas Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.

Luttigs scathing rebuke of Trump and endorsement of Harris underscores the depths of divisions between Reagan-and Bush-era Republicans and the modern, Trump-dominated GOP. The former judge is just as an unsparing of the Republican party as he is of Trump, whom together he says have launched the war on Americas Democracy.

The corrosive effects, he adds, will echo through generations.

Because of the former presidents continued, knowingly false claims that he won the 2020 election, millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in our national elections, and many never will again, Luttig writes. Many Americans especially young Americans, tragically have even begun to question whether constitutional democracy is the best form of self-government for America.

The stakes, Luttig argues, are as high now as in the late 18th century, when the countrys founders and authors of the US Constitution including Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, typically political foes joined together to voice concern over the potential emergence of an authoritarian demagogue.

The stakes, Luttig argues, are as high now as in the late 18th century, when the countrys founders and authors of the US Constitution including Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, typically political foes joined together to voice concern over the potential emergence of an authoritarian demagogue.

"The time for Americas choosing has come, Luttig writes. It is time for all Americans to stand and affirm whether they believe in American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, and want for America the same or whether they do not.

Though this will be Luttigs first time pulling the lever for a Democrat in any election, he has, in the aftermath of January 6, 2021, come out in support of some decisions by the Biden administration. He wholeheartedly endorsed the 2022 nomination of now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the high court, even calling out Republicans who said they would not vote to confirm her.

"The President knew at the time that there were any number of highly qualified black women on the lower federal courts from among whom he could choose including Judge Jackson and Republicans should have known that the President would nominate one of those supremely qualified black women to succeed Justice Breyer, he wrote at the time.

Luttig now joins a number of high-profile Republicans endorsing Harris, including former members of Congress Joe Walsh, Barbara Comstock and Adam Kinzinger.

Kinzinger, now a CNN contributor, will have a high-profile speaking slot this week at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, also a CNN contributor, endorsed Harris at the end of July in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed.

Her campaign, he wrote, was the best vehicle toward preventing another stained Trump presidency.

Speaking to CNN, Luttig said his decision to publicly back Harris was a matter of knowing right from wrong and acting in accordance.

"In my faith, we believe that we will one day answer for our wrongs. I have always tried to live my life in anticipation of that day. Imperfectly, to be sure. But I have tried, an emotional Luttig said. My endorsement of the Vice President was the right thing to do. It would have been wrong for me to stay silent, and I believe I would have one day had to answer for that silence.

Its really that simple."

Now, when will other high profile Repubs who have either publically refused to endorse Trump or remained silent about it complete the circle and openly endorse Harris?

Especially those who claim to be people of faith; MittWitt Romney, ranch brush-clearer GW Bush, Pious Mike Pence, etc?

Heed Judge Luttig's warning; Remaining silent about it or suggesting you will write in "Mickey Mouse" will surely prevent you from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

**CheckMate1** · 08-19-24 16:14

Originally Posted by SubCmdr [View Original Post]

All of the voting issues could be resolved with a pen and paper and proper instructions that are simple. Mark only one candidate for each office or you vote will be considered invalid. In bold just how a wrote it at the top of the ballot.

The votes should be hand counted twice. Elections are the core of democracy. They should be kept simple.

As everything in the world, technology advancement allows for more accuracy not less. Example, you believe in crytocurrency because the ledger is accurate from one transfer to the next, and so on are recorded, and that over printing of money is a human decision. As fiat money can not be accounted for once it is printed and in the hands of the user, crypto can be trace through its lifetime. Machines have parameter that they don't disregard and codes can be audited. I believe most of the errors are human, not machine. Machines only need to be adjusted once at the test levels to prevent machine errors. Whereas human can continue to make the same mistake over and over again.

I will agree with you that proper instructions are needed, but I like machines over the what we have before.

**EihTooms** · 08-19-24 09:18

Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]

As politically knowledgeable (seriously) as you are, it's amazing that the newspaper consortium's work on the 2000 election slipped by you. See here for example.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/u...s-did-not.html

Bush would have come up the winner if the USA Supreme Court hadn't stopped the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, or if the recount had been limited to four Democratic counties, in accordance with Gore's strategy early on. It's more difficult to say what would have happened if all rejected votes had been recounted, but, using some of your favorite words, that's in the realm of "whataboutism" and "might have, could have, should have. ".

Lichtman's work on the 2000 election was for the USA Commission on Civil Rights. John Lott, a Yale economist, was also engaged by the commission. Lott determined that "it is African American Republicans who were harmed. Indeed, the nonvoted ballot rate for white Republicans is higher than for white or African‐American Democrats. The data also indicate that nonvoted ballot rates are highest in those counties where Democrats are the election supervisors. ".

I can say with 100% certainty that Lichtman doesn't know much about statistics, and / or he was pursuing an agenda and purposefully twisted the data. I say this because he favored analysis of the data at the county level instead of the precinct level. His precinct level analysis did not show, with statistical significance, that more African American ballots were spoiled than other ballots. Anyone who's aware of Simpson's paradox would favor the precinct level analysis. To provide a recent example, in Scotland, people who got the COVID vaccine were more likely to have suffered from severe COVID or die from COVID than people who did not. The reason is because older people got vaccinated in higher numbers than younger people. When you segment the date by age groups, you see the vaccine was highly effective in preventing severe disease and death. You're seeing a similar, although not as pronounced, effect here.

Licthman also didn't even look at spoiled ballots among Hispanic Americans or Asians. He just threw them in with whites. This is curious because there were more Hispanics, many of which were Cuban American immigrants. They may have been more likely to vote Republican. Also they were less literate on average than whites and blacks. If you're going to make the racist argument that blacks didn't know how to mark ballots, that should apply doubly for Latin immigrants. Many are learning English. Their presence is the reason California, New York and Texas rank higher in level of illiteracy than most other states.

Lichtman refused to supply his data to dissenting members of the Commission by the way.

Lichtman's agenda probably was to try to benefit the Democratic Party, by showing, by hook or crook, that black voters had been disenfranchised. Democrats used this strategy for many years to get an advantage. It enabled them to aggressively gerrymander blue states, while the courts prevented similar shenanigans in some red southern states. You can see the results by comparing the popular vote for the House of Representatives to the % of House seats won by Democrats. From 1948 to 2008, the Democrats usually got a lot more than their fair share of House seats.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...s_ch2_tbl2.pdf

From the dissenting commissioners' report.

"The majority report lays the blame for the supposed disenfranchisement of black voters at the feet of state officials particularly Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris. In fact, however, elections in Florida are the responsibility of 67 county supervisors of election. And, interestingly, in all but one of the 25 counties with the highest spoilage rates, the election was supervised by a Democrat the one exception being an official with no party affiliation..

The majority report argues that much of the spoiled ballot problem was due to voting technology. But elected Democratic Party officials decided on the type of machinery used, including the optical scanning system in Gadsden County, the state's only majority-black county and the one with the highest spoilage rate."

In other words, you can blame high spoilage rates on incompetent Democrats. That's not surprising, Republicans govern better at the state and local level.

As to the rest of your post, I've given up on getting you to see the true light. I think you're a lost cause. But I still pray for your enlightenment.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345576

https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/vot...ix/dissent.htm

Your NYT report appears to support Lichtman's contention regarding over votes and a Gore win even if they had ignored the earlier ballot / vote rejections and only gone with the hanging and dimpled Chad examination, but carried out in a more state-wide fashion rather than the more limited precinct examinations Gore went with due to time restraints:

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ''count all the votes.''
...........
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.
...........
All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.

The minority dissenting opinion expressed by Thernstrom and Redenbaugh, much of which relies on Lott's article on spoiled (non voted) ballot rates, is too twisted and convoluted for me to read all of it, particularly considering it is in fact the minority opinion that was overwhelmed and substantiated by the majority in that hearing anyway.

However, as I scanned it I was struck by the effort they put into promoting the idea that one can not necessarily conclude that the high percentage of ballots / votes that were rejeced for over votes (as opposed to non votes) in highly segregated African American precincts in Florida were originally cast by African Americans. Like, you know, maybe most of the rejected ones were cast by the scant few White, Asian or Hispanic residents in those precincts. After all, once cast the identity of the voter is not known.

Uh. Ok. LOL.

And most of those African American precincts, predominantly Dem and definitely not Repub, had Dems for election supervisors? No kidding? Of course, if Repub State Legislators say toss out the over votes, that is what those law-abiding Dems are going to do.

Doesn't change the fact concluded by the majority in that Lichtman hearing and the consortium reported on by the NYT that more Floridians voted for and intended to vote for Al Gore rather than GW Bush in the 2000 election.

**SubCmdr** · 08-19-24 08:09

All of the voting issues could be resolved with a pen and paper and proper instructions that are simple. Mark only one candidate for each office or you vote will be considered invalid. In bold just how a wrote it at the top of the ballot.

The votes should be hand counted twice. Elections are the core of democracy. They should be kept simple.

**Tiny 12** · 08-19-24 05:55

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

The answers to the questions of how it was known that the overwhelming percentage of "rejected for error" ballots in Florida were cast by African Americans even before they would or could be reviewed for hanging chads as well as how likely most of those earlier rejected ballots / votes would have been for Gore is addressed in the full report and in Lichtman's 10 minute video I linked previously and will link again here:

https://youtu.be/D57mZejswkI?si=Me7T-1y5NWoh0LAN

The shorter (and incomplete) version is:

- 180,000 ballots / votes in Florida were rejected for error....

Your post showed up after I posted mine, I believe. It's getting late here. I'll try to remember to watch the video tomorrow. I suspect my links below provide good rebuttals to whatever's in the video.

Most of the 180,000 rejected votes for president were undervotes and overvotes. By that I mean either the voter didn't mark the ballot for any candidate, or he marked it for more than one.

I undervote in a lot of elections. If I don't know anything about the candidates, I won't choose, and just move onto the next office. I've read about knowledgeable people overvoting. They like two candidates and probably don't realize if they do that, their votes won't count.

**Tiny 12** · 08-19-24 05:35

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

Without a link I really can't say exactly where and how all those people got it wrong. But from your description of it I suspect they were focused on ballots with or without hanging chads and all that. Which is not what the study and investigation Lichtman testified in found to be the evidence that votes for Gore were not accepted or counted at all. Did you read the actual link for the actual most definitive study of it that I posted?

As politically knowledgeable (seriously) as you are, it's amazing that the newspaper consortium's work on the 2000 election slipped by you. See here for example.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/u...s-did-not.html

Bush would have come up the winner if the USA Supreme Court hadn't stopped the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, or if the recount had been limited to four Democratic counties, in accordance with Gore's strategy early on. It's more difficult to say what would have happened if all rejected votes had been recounted, but, using some of your favorite words, that's in the realm of "whataboutism" and "might have, could have, should have. ".

Lichtman's work on the 2000 election was for the USA Commission on Civil Rights. John Lott, a Yale economist, was also engaged by the commission. Lott determined that "it is African American Republicans who were harmed. Indeed, the nonvoted ballot rate for white Republicans is higher than for white or African‐American Democrats. The data also indicate that nonvoted ballot rates are highest in those counties where Democrats are the election supervisors. ".

I can say with 100% certainty that Lichtman doesn't know much about statistics, and / or he was pursuing an agenda and purposefully twisted the data. I say this because he favored analysis of the data at the county level instead of the precinct level. His precinct level analysis did not show, with statistical significance, that more African American ballots were spoiled than other ballots. Anyone who's aware of Simpson's paradox would favor the precinct level analysis. To provide a recent example, in Scotland, people who got the COVID vaccine were more likely to have suffered from severe COVID or die from COVID than people who did not. The reason is because older people got vaccinated in higher numbers than younger people. When you segment the date by age groups, you see the vaccine was highly effective in preventing severe disease and death. You're seeing a similar, although not as pronounced, effect here.

Licthman also didn't even look at spoiled ballots among Hispanic Americans or Asians. He just threw them in with whites. This is curious because there were more Hispanics, many of which were Cuban American immigrants. They may have been more likely to vote Republican. Also they were less literate on average than whites and blacks. If you're going to make the racist argument that blacks didn't know how to mark ballots, that should apply doubly for Latin immigrants. Many are learning English. Their presence is the reason California, New York and Texas rank higher in level of illiteracy than most other states.

Lichtman refused to supply his data to dissenting members of the Commission by the way.

Lichtman's agenda probably was to try to benefit the Democratic Party, by showing, by hook or crook, that black voters had been disenfranchised. Democrats used this strategy for many years to get an advantage. It enabled them to aggressively gerrymander blue states, while the courts prevented similar shenanigans in some red southern states. You can see the results by comparing the popular vote for the House of Representatives to the % of House seats won by Democrats. From 1948 to 2008, the Democrats usually got a lot more than their fair share of House seats.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...s_ch2_tbl2.pdf

From the dissenting commissioners' report.

"The majority report lays the blame for the supposed disenfranchisement of black voters at the feet of state officials particularly Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris. In fact, however, elections in Florida are the responsibility of 67 county supervisors of election. And, interestingly, in all but one of the 25 counties with the highest spoilage rates, the election was supervised by a Democrat the one exception being an official with no party affiliation..

The majority report argues that much of the spoiled ballot problem was due to voting technology. But elected Democratic Party officials decided on the type of machinery used, including the optical scanning system in Gadsden County, the state's only majority-black county and the one with the highest spoilage rate."

In other words, you can blame high spoilage rates on incompetent Democrats. That's not surprising, Republicans govern better at the state and local level.

As to the rest of your post, I've given up on getting you to see the true light. I think you're a lost cause. But I still pray for your enlightenment.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345576

https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/vot...ix/dissent.htm

**EihTooms** · 08-19-24 03:58

Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]

A comment and a question. The definitive, after-the-fact study of the 2000 election was done by a group of 8 newspapers, the New York Times, The WSJ, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, the AP, the St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post, and CNN. They went back and counted all the hanging chads et cetera and determined Bush would have won anyway if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the count.

Allan "Rudy Giuliani" Lichtman apparently is approaching the problem from a different angle. I'd like to know how whoever was counting votes knew whether a ballot was marked by a black person or a white person. Lichtman's argument sounds racist to me, that minority voters don't know how to mark ballots.

That's not to say that we might not have been better off under Gore. Maybe Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

And now the question. Elvis brought up Kamala Harris' involvement in getting FOSTA and SESTA passed. I haven't seen a peep out of anyone about that. How do you gentlemen feel about publishing reports here, knowing that Kamala's legislation might just get you or the owners of this site that we treasure thrown in jail? Kamala Harris is not the Monger's Friend.

The answers to the questions of how it was known that the overwhelming percentage of "rejected for error" ballots in Florida were cast by African Americans even before they would or could be reviewed for hanging chads as well as how likely most of those earlier rejected ballots / votes would have been for Gore is addressed in the full report and in Lichtman's 10 minute video I linked previously and will link again here:

https://youtu.be/D57mZejswkI?si=Me7T-1y5NWoh0LAN

The shorter (and incomplete) version is:

- 180,000 ballots / votes in Florida were rejected for error.

- In Florida, people register to vote indicating their race.

- Al Gore's support among African Americans was 95%.

- Of the 180,000 ballots / votes rejected for error, a huge, disproportionately high percentage of ballots / votes in highly segregated African American precincts were rejected, to the tune of 1 out of every 9 or 10 vs that of predominantly white precincts at 1 out of 50.

- Many if not most of the African American ballots / votes that were rejected out of hand were for "over votes" where they had not only punched the Chad hole for Gore but also wrote in his name just to be sure.

- Such an obvious "clear intent" as above was precisely what all those days of hand counting and Chad checking (too late to save those earlier African American precinct rejections) was supposed to be about.

- Even a conservative mathematical estimate on how many African American ballots / votes that were rejected despite the clearest intent imaginable for which candidate they were voting for along with that 95% support for Gore in the African American communities of Florida concluded tens of thousands of Gore votes in Florida were never counted, might not have even made it to the hanging Chad checking stage of the recount on which all those supposedly "definitive" after the fact reviews were based.

Al Gore would very likely have sprung into action to spread the word at airports to be particularly on the look out for suspicious behavior based on that alarming Presidential Daily Briefing Bush got weeks before his 9/11 Attack instead of blowing it off and ignoring it so he could get back to clearing brush down at the ranch the way Bush did and while Rice ignored it as well.

Similar to the way his boss Clinton responded pro-actively whenever he got such an Intel briefing. A serious response like that is almost always picked up and known by the terrorist plotters and they will either drop their plan or behave more suspiciously out of fear in the knowledge that "someone gives a shit and is looking for us. ".

No such worry clouded the intentions or altered the behavior of those 9/11 hijackers under GW Bush. And for good reason; he and Rice didn't give a shit enough to respond to that alarming early warning PDB.

Same as Trump didn't give a shit about all expert warnings for him not to do something so dangerous and stupid as to defund and remove the highly successful Early Warning, Pandemic Prevention Team from those Chinese labs in 2018 and 2019.

Consequently, it is extremely doubtful there would have been a 9/11 Attack at all then or another time during an Al Gore presidency. Therefore, no invasion of Iraq and no war in Afghanistan.

Oh, and no 2008 GW Bush Financial Crisis near total collapse of Capitalism and the American Economy for Obama-Biden to rescue and recover us from either.

That 2000 stolen election by Jeb and his fellow Repubs had massive and disastrous domino-effect repercussions.

**Spidy** · 08-18-24 18:19

Make no mistake about it, convict Trump is the American "boggeyman", we all fear and loath. More specifically the "Project 2025 Boogeyman"! And let's not forget the sidekick Tweedledee "Single Mom Cat Women" boogeyman!

Yes, as Trump and Repubs, attempt to paint Harris in a poor light, in as many ways as they can, to see what will sticks to the wall and have you believe Veep Harris is "bad for the presidency of the office", that Harris is "bad for the economy", that Harris "has no vision for the country", that Harris "isn't going to be "tough on crime", that Harris will make "America look bad on the international stage", that Harris "isn't intelligent" and lets not forget the newly minted, Harris will be "bad mongering", schtick...sigh!

Just for the records:

For me anyways, it has always been perfectly clear that whatever the circumstances, world events, changes in gov't administrations, viruses, pandemics, or political "boogeymen" and "boogeywomen", that have seemingly blocked our path to "putang", any mongerer worth their salt, have always adapted and thrived. --Enuf said!

So let's be real clear, Trump, Vance, Repubs and Project 2025, are the REAL "boggeymen", Americans should pay attention to:

Project 2025, a subversive doctrine, is roughly a 1,000-page document they have written as a manual for their right-wing fascist 2025 administration. They are TELLING you, what this American "boggeyman" hellscape will look like, if Trump/Vance ticket, is elected in 2024 (Note: This is just a short list):

• Mass layoffs of civil servants • Install Trump loyalists • Terminate Constitution
• Investigate political advisors • Seal-Team 6 "sanctioned" political killing

• Mass deportations • Bomb Mexico • Shoot Migrants • Electrify Wall
• Reinstate and expand the ban of people from Muslim-majority countries
• Impose immigrant "ideological screening" • Revoke student protesters visas w/ceasefire

• Gut/Terminate the Dept. of Education • Teach "patriotic education"
• Shoot shoplifters • Require "stop & frisk" • Billionaire Tax-Cuts/exempt f/prosecution
• Mass tent camps for homeless people • Re-institutionalize the mentally ill

• Immunity to all police officers • Deploy Military/National Guard to combat protests
• Federal takeovers of Democratic cities including D.C., Chicago and New York
• Gut the green energy programs • Exit the Paris Climate Accords
• Gut the EPA Increase the use of fossil fuels & discard EVs

• Enforce the 1873 Comstock Act to ban abortion nationwide
• Punish Hospital that provide any transgender care
• Nationwide ban on abortion, women's care, trans care minors

• End Birthright Citizenship
• Allow states to roll-back/punish, women's, LGBTQ and minority rights, as they see fit
• Withdraw from NATO • No "two-state" solution • 10% Tarrif on foreign goods

Sure the world would NOT come to an END, as some folk like to tell ya, but it sure would turn to shit! As "everything turns to shit under Trump", just as things ALWAYS do under Trump!

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

... By stark contrast, when Dems warn us that this or that Repub policy will wreak havoc on the American economy and the lives of millions of Americans, that is exactly what happens. And all too often it truly does bring us to the brink of destroying Capitalism and the American Economy as we know and love it.

So my Days of suffering through know nothing, do nothing, Deadbeat Repubs who insist THEY know how to do anything well and positive for America and that the "idiot" Dems just don't know what they are doing are long, long, long over.

Agreed! As Trump and Repubs, attempt to gaslight they their way to the WH, they do this, precisely because they have become a "know nothing, do nothing" party, under Trump

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

I ain't falling for that Repub con anymore.

Yep, me neither! Even Veep Harris, says "Don't fall for the okey-doke" (...kkkk!)

**EihTooms** · 08-18-24 10:39

Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]

A comment and a question. The definitive, after-the-fact study of the 2000 election was done by a group of 8 newspapers, the New York Times, The WSJ, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, the AP, the St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post, and CNN. They went back and counted all the hanging chads et cetera and determined Bush would have won anyway if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the count.

Allan "Rudy Giuliani" Lichtman apparently is approaching the problem from a different angle. I'd like to know how whoever was counting votes knew whether a ballot was marked by a black person or a white person. Lichtman's argument sounds racist to me, that minority voters don't know how to mark ballots.

That's not to say that we might not have been better off under Gore. Maybe Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

And now the question. Elvis brought up Kamala Harris' involvement in getting FOSTA and SESTA passed. I haven't seen a peep out of anyone about that. How do you gentlemen feel about publishing reports here, knowing that Kamala's legislation might just get you or the owners of this site that we treasure thrown in jail? Kamala Harris is not the Monger's Friend.

Without a link I really can't say exactly where and how all those people got it wrong. But from your description of it I suspect they were focused on ballots with or without hanging chads and all that. Which is not what the study and investigation Lichtman testified in found to be the evidence that votes for Gore were not accepted or counted at all. Did you read the actual link for the actual most definitive study of it that I posted?

On FOSTA and SESTA, they fall within the usual sucker social issues on which I would never base my vote. Society will work that out regardless who is in the WH. And it will wind up being more liberal than conservative. That's how human beings are. That is what they want.

Meanwhile, none of your parables will ever change the inarguable facts of historic and quite current horrific Repub economic policy and stewardship results vs historic and quite current positive Dem economic policy and stewardship results.

Call it Real World (Dem) results vs Academic and Repeatedly Debunked (Repub) results perhaps.

The fact is whenever Repubs, Wingers, Trumpsters, Conservatives, Bothsiders, Neithersiders, Independents or whatever moniker they are hiding behind warn us that the Dems' plan, policies and stewardship will surely destroy Capitalism and the American Economy as we know and love it according to some passage in a text book written by a ludite, they turn out to be 100% wrong in every conceivable way; we get historic economic Recoveries, Expansions, jobs creation, business successes, even reduced budget deficits and, often, legislation destined to become revered by most Americans as examples for what really Makes America Great.

And we usually get those pronouncement from the clueless rabble just as Dems are coming into office to clean up the typical colossal mess of everything the Repub left behind.

By stark contrast, when Dems warn us that this or that Repub policy will wreak havoc on the American economy and the lives of millions of Americans, that is exactly what happens. And all too often it truly does bring us to the brink of destroying Capitalism and the American Economy as we know and love it.

So my Days of suffering through know nothing, do nothing, Deadbeat Repubs who insist THEY know how to do anything well and positive for America and that the "idiot" Dems just don't know what they are doing are long, long, long over.

I ain't falling for that Repub con anymore.

**Spidy** · 08-18-24 07:51

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

The demonstrably Winger-leaning polling site, RealClearPolitics, has now shifted the Battleground State of Arizona from the Trump side of their No Toss-Up States Electoral College Map to the Harris side.

They have not quite yet shifted the other important Battleground State of Pennsylvania from Trump to Harris. But that might happen in a matter of days or hours because they do show it to be tied between Trump and Harris as of this writing. See screenshots below:

https://www.realclearpolling.com/ele...eground-states

Harris now leads Trump in the Consensus of both the Head-to-Head and 5-Way races on RCP while Trump is still hanging onto about as nominal a lead as you can have in the overall Battleground States, at +0. 1 point. At this writing, that nominal lead is due to him only hanging onto leads in Nevada, North Carolina and Georgia by 1 to 1. 3 percentage point.

Oh, and the 538 Site already has Harris ahead of Trump Nationally and in the important Battleground States of WI, MI and PA.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Of course, I only mention these interesting details in passing for those who are interested in polls.

Or used to be.

While "others" are no longer quoting their ever loving Vegas Odds (not that I think they're a real indicator of victory, but) I was interested in seeing what Vegas was NOW saying:

Harris becomes betting favorite in presidential election odds after swing state barnstorm
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rm/ar-AA1oEqRd

Trader Up $500,000 Betting On Kamala Harris, Could Make Another $1M If The Vice President Wins The Election
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cry...-president-win

Look at that, Harris is already making people rich! (...kkkk$)

BTW, well you did say:

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

"Don't worry, they can flip-flop from one extreme to the other on a dime, much like Shady Pants, I mean J.D. Vance's opinion of Donald Trump"

Speaking of a yet another Tweedledum flip-flop, this time gaslighting Americans, and defending Tweedledee's so called love of the military and his disrespectful false medal equivalencies gaffe, the uproar among the military was visibly upsetting, especially veterans with MOHs.

Medal Of Honor (MOH) recipients, came out to say: "Trump has no clue about Military service or what it means to serve your country. Or to put others before/above yourself. Or what it means for self-sacrifice, for your fellow soldiers, countrymen, or brothers-in-arms."

Yet again, another example of Trump's attempt at gaslighting his disdain for the military, using JD Vance's military background, to defend his MOH gaffe and rewrite recent history, in Aug 2020, where he called, "Americans who died in war are 'Losers' and 'Suckers'."

Needless to say the backlash was swift and harsh for the Tweedledum/Tweedledee campaign, that it doesn't look good for the military vote either!

**Tiny 12** · 08-18-24 02:11

A comment and a question. The definitive, after-the-fact study of the 2000 election was done by a group of 8 newspapers, the New York Times, The WSJ, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, the AP, the St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post, and CNN. They went back and counted all the hanging chads et cetera and determined Bush would have won anyway if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the count.

Allan "Rudy Giuliani" Lichtman apparently is approaching the problem from a different angle. I'd like to know how whoever was counting votes knew whether a ballot was marked by a black person or a white person. Lichtman's argument sounds racist to me, that minority voters don't know how to mark ballots.

That's not to say that we might not have been better off under Gore. Maybe Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

And now the question. Elvis brought up Kamala Harris' involvement in getting FOSTA and SESTA passed. I haven't seen a peep out of anyone about that. How do you gentlemen feel about publishing reports here, knowing that Kamala's legislation might just get you or the owners of this site that we treasure thrown in jail? Kamala Harris is not the Monger's Friend.

**Spidy** · 08-18-24 01:11

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

The world's non Repub MAGAs already know all about this and don't really need to read or listen to this book to know everything in it.

But it would no doubt come as a total shock for low information suc, er I mean, emotion-driven cult-followers, er I mean "conservatives" to realize what was done to them:

Ministry of Truth.
Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past.

https://www.msnbc.com/ministryoftruth

I didn't see this initially on the MSNBC webpage, but for those who may also have missed it, this 6 minute audio, sums up nicely the madness, mendacity and the absence of shame, to the everyday pernicious lies, now being perpetrated as truth, by the newly converted gullible GOP/Republican party, into a "Trumpian Hellscape".

(6-min.) Method to the madness, is a foundation of lies, built on four (4) pernicious pillars:
https://soundcloud.com/harperaudio_u...by-steve-benen

**Spidy** · 08-18-24 00:33

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

Allan Lichtman is the man referenced here whose 13 Keys to the White House system has accurately predicted 10 out of 10 presidential election winners since 1984, with that same 13 Keys system proving accurate if applied to elections going back to 1860.

Yes, those 10 out of 10 that he accurately predicted since 1984 includes his prediction that Al Gore would win in 2000. He proved in 2001 that the 2000 election was a stolen election here:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election.

https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/vot...ort/exesum.htm

And just today he posted this 10 minute video recapping the egregious violations of tens of thousands of Florida's Gore voters' Rights by rejecting their clear and unambiguous intention to cast a vote for Al Gore:

https://youtu.be/D57mZejswkI?si=CmcFXcyTrX2NAnC9

My god. Thousands of African American voters' ballots were rejected in Jeb Bush's Florida for a punched ballot next to Al Gore's name and writing in his name, probably just to make sure their vote for Gore was counted despite a potential "hanging Chad" or incomplete punch-through.

Your absolutely right, it is pretty egregious!

Lichtman is right, it was stolen! Is it any wonder why, Trump has been targeting, all of the Black and Brown counties and communities, in the key battleground states, and lying, claiming widespread election fraud? With the intent of pulling the same false narratives w/r to those communities votes being "rejected".

YES, indeed the stolen 2000 Election due to the fraudulent rejection of votes in Florida, was IMHO, the blue print for Repubs and Trump. It was the testing ground and proof positive, that if we (Repubs) at attack, disenfranchise and destroy, these Black and Brown minority communities ability to vote, grants us a clearer path to victory.

The 2000 Election is definitely a great case great, for those studying, Constitution and Voting Rights Election Laws. But serves as a reminder, that cases like this, is THE ONLY WAY, that Repubs know how to win, as this same scenario, is played out in different battle ground states, each election cycle.

**Tiny 12** · 08-17-24 21:43

Kamala Harris is a dumb *****. Leave it to a Progressive Democratic politician to come up with a plan that will create a black market in milk. If she plans to enforce the price controls on the supermarkets, then given they only have 2% margins, they'll go out of business. Welcome to Venezuela!

We wrote Friday that Kamala Harris was likely to continue President Biden's unfinished Build Back Better agenda, but it turns out we were far too optimistic. The policy priorities the Vice President laid out Friday are much worse, including a plan to impose national price controls on food and groceries.

Ms. Harris's political problem is that the Biden-Harris economic policies have delivered inflation and declining real incomes. The high price of food is a particular sore point, and the Vice President's response is to make it worse by resorting to Venezuelan-style left-wing populism. That's no exaggeration.

On Friday she floated a "first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries," including "new authority" for the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to punish companies for charging too much.

This sounds like legislation introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren that would ban "grossly excessive prices" as determined by the Federal Trade Commission. Business violations would carry a penalty of up to 5% of annual revenue. This would effectively let the FTC set prices. But what is an excessive price? Is $4 too much for a gallon of milk in Omaha? Is it a different price in Miami? FTC Chair Lina Khan and her army of bureaucrats would presumably decide.

There is also no evidence that supermarkets or other food retailers are gouging anyone. Food prices are higher than they were before the Biden Presidency, but that is because of inflation. Retail grocery prices have risen roughly in tandem with wholesale prices. Supermarkets also have narrow margins on sales roughly 2%, compared to 8% on average for other businesses.

Fixing prices is a recipe for shortages, as controls would discourage grocery suppliers. Voil, empty store shelves. Price controls have led to shortages everywhere they've been tried, from Moscow to Caracas.

The Biden-Harris inflation has made homes unaffordable for most young families, and her brainstorm for that is. . . More subsidies. Ms. Harris wants $25,000 in down-payment assistance for "first-time" home buyers. But this would merely drive home prices higher. States and localities mainly regulate housing, but Ms. Harris wants to federalize it with a bonanza of Washington programs to encourage "affordable" home construction.

Ms. Harris has endorsed the Biden plan to condition tax breaks for developers on rent caps, which will discourage new housing investment. No state has spent more on housing than her native California, yet it has the nation's highest home prices. As a result of sundry regulations, it costs more than $1 million to build an "affordable" housing unit in the Golden State.

We could go on about her other ideas, such as her embrace of Mr. Biden's $5 trillion in tax increases. But the ideas she claimed as her own Friday reveal a candidate whose economic judgment is deeply flawed.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-h...nion_lead_pos1

**Elvis 2008** · 08-17-24 21:40

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

To whatever extent Government Spending contributed to Trump's Pandemic Inflation (turns out in this case not all that much), Trump's government spending in 2020, well before Biden passed his American Rescue Plan Act, dwarfs that of 2021 and ever since.

Biden's legislation would only account for a fraction of a fraction of the Inflation Trump's Pandemic, his tarrifs on imported goods and his pre 2021 government spending caused.

When I use the term Democratic douche, this is why I do so. Trump and Biden both engaged in massive borrowing and spending and when Trump does it, it somehow is bad and when Biden does it, it is great.

Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]

And if that smidgen more inflation contributed to by Biden's brilliant recovery policies and stewardship prevented us and the rest of the world from another Great Repub Depression and a very hard Repub Crash Landing post-Trump's Pandemic, I can only add, "Thanks again, Joe and Kamsla. ":

There is nothing to applaud with Bidenomics. Inflation is down because of the Fed DESPITE Biden's spending. The problem with that is when you make borrowing costs higher to lower prices, you do so by cutting demand.

The deficit is projected to be $2. 2 trillion. Of that, $1. 6 trillion is projected to be interest payments on the debt. When you are racking up huge credit card debt and you are paying 25% of your income to pay down those credit cards, that is nothing to be proud of.

The government / both political parties freaked out, made Covid into this huge deal instead of calmly and logically reflecting on it. All of a sudden a virus with a death rate at worst twice the rate of the common cold was a reason to go $10 trillion in debt. All the government was doing was printing up money and using that to compensate for the fall in demand. That is not brilliant. It is stupid, and the taxpayer still pays in the end. It is just in the form of inflation versus taxation.

And you are bragging about the rate of inflation being down now? Big fucking deal. You do not live here. Prices are so fucking high and conditions are so bad people are not spending money like they used to. You do not see the stores closing right and left. You do not see the desperation on the part of restaurants like McDonald's cutting prices.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Food/mcdo...y?id=110676473

You also do not see restaurant chains going under.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...-11-bankruptcy

Buca di Beppo's bankruptcy filing marks the latest in the restaurant industry this year.

In recent months, Tijuana Flats, Red Lobster and Rubio's Coastal Grill have each entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

And here you have the perfect headline to describe this mess:

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/28/maj...nsumer-demand/

Major restaurant chains are cutting menu prices due to high food costs, decrease in consumer demand.

And when you have decreased prices due to falling demand, that is not something to applaud. The word for that is not recession but depression.

Gee, thanks again, Joe and Kamala. Let's make sure we blame all this on those greedy food companies instead of government's own insane spending. Yeesh.